Showing posts with label anna kendrick. Show all posts
Showing posts with label anna kendrick. Show all posts

Sunday, October 7, 2012

Weekend Box Office (10-07-12): Taken 2 scores $50m while Frankenweenie stumbles and Pitch Perfect stays on-note.

As always, check out John Gosling's insanely informative 'preview' of this weekend's new releases HERE.

Taken 2 basically pulled a Bourne this weekend, as a prime example where a well-liked and leggy original film capitalized on said goodwill with a massive opening weekend for the second installment.  Taken 2: The Takening earned a massive $50 million this weekend, which is more than double the $24 million debut of the first Taken over Super Bowl weekend 2009.  If the numbers hold, it will be the third-biggest opening in October, behind only last year's $52 million debut of Paranormal Activity 3 and $50.4 million debut of Jackass 3D.  The trajectory is most similar to the Bourne series and yes the last two 007 films.  The Bourne Identity had a $27 million debut in June 2002, which was followed by a leggy run to $121 million and a sterling performance on DVD as a top-rented title.  Two summers later, The Bourne Supremacy debuted to $52 million and ended its US run with $176 million.  While Casino Royale was technically the 22nd 007 film, it played like a reboot/fresh start to the franchise and it too parlayed a solid $40 million opening into a leggy $167 million run and massive critical and audience approval.  Two years later, Quantum of Solace opened with $67 million and quick-killed its way to a $168 million domestic gross.

Sunday, September 30, 2012

Weekend Box Office (09-30-12): Hotel Transylvania scores record September debut while Looper opens strong and Pitch Perfect explodes in semi-limited debut.

As always, for historical trivia and additional context on the week's new release, John Gosling spells it out HERE.

While the whole 'measure the cumulative weekend box office' trend is usually stupid if not dangerous, I must admit that this is indeed an 'everybody wins' weekend.  Sony had the top two films, with one setting a record and the other merely opening in line with realistic expectations.  Hotel Transylvania scored a whopping $43 million this weekend, which at the very least crushes the previous September record, the $36 million debut of Sweet Home Alabama back in 2002.  The Genndy Tartakovsky (Dexter’s Laboratory, Samurai Jack, those snazzy Star Wars: The Clone Wars shorts)-helmed pic had a rather large 3,8x weekend multiplier, going from an $11 million Friday to a $19 million Saturday.  In other words, it performed how a non-frontloaded non-sequel animated film is supposed to perform.  Among animated films that aren't sequels/spin-offs and weren't release by either Dreamworks or Disney/Pixar, this opening actually ranks rather high.  If you count the two Dr. Seuess adaptations (The Lorax with $70 million and Horton Hears a Who with $45 million), Hotel Transylvania is the fifth-biggest non-sequel/spin-off animated opening not released by the two animation titans.  If you only count wholly original properties, then it trails only Despicable Me ($56 million) and the first Ice Age ($46 million) and comes in just ahead of Warner Bros' Happy Feet ($41 million). 

Wednesday, September 26, 2012

John Gosling previews the weekend's new films (09-28-12)

Looper is a new science-fiction feature from Brick director, Rian Johnson and stars Joseph Gordon-Levitt, Bruce Willis and Emily Blunt. Levitt plays Joseph Simmons, a 'looper' who works for the mob. A very well paid assassin, it's his job to kill people sent back from the future, where time travel has been perfected, but outlawed. 'Loopers' only operate on one rule - never let your target escape. Major problems arise when Simmons comes face to face with his next hit and discovers it is a future version of himself (Played by Willis). In the confusion, the older version escapes, leaving a young Simmons in a race against time to put things right before the mob step in - all the while knowing that if he succeeds, he will become his own murderer.  Johnson began developing Looper once production on his previous film, The Brothers Bloom was completed in 2008, with a view to start work some time in 2009. While things didn't come together as quickly as anticipated, by May 2010 he had script and had cast Joseph Gordon-Levitt in the lead role, the two having previously worked together on 2005's Brick. Willis would join the picture later that same month, with Blunt added to the cast in October. Shooting on the $60M Looper got underway in January 2011 (after a short delay while Levitt worked on Premium Rush) taking in Louisiana and Shanghai among its locations.


Monday, April 16, 2012

Why I'd rather see What to Expect When You're Expecting than Battleship.

I'd imagine I'm one of the few 'geek bloggers' who would rather see What To Expect When You're Expecting more than a number of the 'big summer tentpoles'. Aside from perhaps my advancing age, part of this is that a number of the summer films just-plain don't look very good. Aside from the fact that most of us are film nerds and anticipate the new releases as a matter of course, are any of us all that psyched to see BattleshipMen In Black 3, or Total Recall?  Is there a reason we pretend to be excited about ever bigger would-be blockbusters that all-but flaunt their lack of substance at us like a badge of pride?  At the very least, the Lionsgate adaptation of the classic self-help book for pregnant parents promises to actually be 'about something' and have a certain emphasis on human relationships and what-not.  And, as a participatory father forever irked by a popular culture that presumes that dads don't do jack-shit to help raise their kids ("I'd love to change that diaper, but there's no changing table in the men's restroom."), I am at least somewhat pleased by the recent ad campaign.  Lionsgate knows it has female audiences in the bag already, so as noted in the poster above and the trailer after the jump, it's aggressively pitching to men.  

Tuesday, March 27, 2012

Question of the day: Why *isn't* Twilight's Bella Swan a feminist creation?

In a classical sense, FEMINISM is defined as believing that women should have the same rights, freedoms, choices, privileges, and benefits as men in a civilized society.  Under that relatively general definition, I would argue most rational people, men and women, would classify themselves as 'feminist'.  In my eye, the feminist ideal is not one where women constantly make the 'correct' moral and/or professional decisions or choices that further their own independence, but merely that they have the freedom to do so if they so desire.  So I ask the question, why exactly is the Twilight Saga inherently anti-feminist?  I'm speaking merely to the movies and not the books, but as the series has unfolded, it's primarily been about one thing: Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart) relentlessly pursuing a singular goal, to be in a long-term relationship with Edward Cullen, no matter what obstacle or constructive criticism is hurled her way.  We may not agree with Bella's choice in men, but as I've written before (HERE), I'm not entirely sure the films agree with her either.  Moreover, if feminism is about having the choice to, as a woman, live your life as you see fit, isn't her dogged pursuit of Mr. Cullen inherently feminist by virtue of it being absolutely Bella's choice?

Thursday, November 17, 2011

Does the Twilight Saga endorse its own story?

I did not attend last night's Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn part I screening.  I was invited, but since I'm married with two kids, I try to reserve press screenings for the important stuff, like tonight's screening of The Muppets and the deluge of Oscar-bait movies I actually want to see (Young Adult next week, Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy the week after).  So while I don't loathe the series like a lot of other people do, I'd still rather catch the latest entry on my own time, instead of plunging into rush hour traffic just 36 hours or so prior to opening morning.  So while other critics (mostly the 'geek crowd' oddly enough) are openly discussing the overt weirdness that is present both in the original Breaking Dawn book and the 'first part' of its film adaptation, the above graduation speech always stuck out for me.  The reason is simple: in about 75 seconds, Ana Kendrick seemingly condemns the entire narrative arc of Bella Swan.  Marrying the first serious boyfriend you get right out of high school?  "Bad".  Not going to college?  "Bad".  Not making any effort while you're young to see the world and/or have various adventures before settling down?  "Bad."  I've had conversations with a friend of mine about whether or not Stephenie Meyer actually endorses the narrative arc that Bella Swan undergoes during the four-novel series, as well as whether or not she wanted Edward Cullen and Bella to end up together at the end at all.

LinkWithin

Related Posts with Thumbnails

Labels